22
comments:

The article refers to something that one Indonesian did. The offender claims to be Muslim, but I haven't heard from any Muslims that I know, that executing school girls is part of any religious celebrations, Ramadan especially. The article demonstrates that the perpetrator was confused about the concept of 'Muslim charity'. It's no different than if you or I killed a Muslim and said we did it for Jesus.

To hold a country or faith accountable for the delusions of an individual... I mean where would that leave the nation/faith of the person who made the link between this act and any present war (presumably the so called 'war on terrorism')?

As for violence between christian and muslim in Indonesia... muslims have been killing christians, christians have been killing muslim, for a long time. It's just that CNN/Foxnews aren't really interested unless they can connect something to 'terrorism'. Australian media; (where the article was from) while not really that interested, has been coveringsectarian violence in Indonesia for many years. This kind of thing is not new, it's just now it gets some people excited because they confuse it with 'the war of terror'

So if this is a reminder of 'what sort of enemy we are fighting'. Perhaps someone could clarify who the enemy is? Islam? Indonesia? Violent misguided fanatics? (you don't even have to leave America for that)

The sad thing is that the Indonesian courts should recognise that this is murder, it's has been treating this sort of thing as murder for decades.

While Indonesia has more than it's share of terrorists, it is clear this person is a murderer, but the Indonesian government are under huge pressure to 'get results on terrorism' from Australia. It would be easy to see this as some 'crazy' taking the fall, because the Indonesian govenment really doesn't have much interest in crack-down on 'real' terrorism, and any links to 'real terrorists' this guy may have were exaggerated (by 'real terrorists' I am not diminishing what the guy did, but let's face it twisted psychos cut-up school girls (for whatever reason), and terrorist blow things up (usually people)).

I wonder; will the leaders of Islam in this region condem these murders? Will they hunt down the individuals and exact Islamic law on them? No they will not.The Qur'an tells them that this person killed non-believers or killed Infidels in the service of Allah.Psssstttt...You guys; I know this is something liberals refuse to connect; butThe War on Terrorism is The War on Islam.

(TI) The war has started a long time ago between two civilizations - between the civilization based on the Bible and between the civilization based on the Koran. And this must be clear.

There is no Fundamental Islam

Fundamentalism is a word that came from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going with the Bible, does not mean going around and killing people. There is no fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop. The question is how the Koran is interpreted.

All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.

The Language of Islam

You see, so much is covered by politically correct language that, in fact, the truth has been lost. For example, when we speak about Islam in the west, we try to use our own language and terminology. We speak about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of parliamentarism and all kinds of terms, which we take from our own dictionary. One of my professors and one of the greatest orientalists in the world says that doing this is like a cricket reporter describing a cricket game in baseball terms. We cannot use for one culture or civilization the language of another. For Islam, you've got to use the language of Islam.

Driving Principles of Islam

Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam. Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only one God.

But it's not enough to say that there is only one God. A Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. These are the fundamentals of the religion that without them, one cannot be a Moslem.

But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the individual, society and nations with rules of behaviour. If you are Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings of the Bible.

The Bible

Let me explain the difference.

The Bible is the creation of the spirit of a nation over a very, very long period, if we talk from the point of view of the scholar, and let me remain scholarly. But there is one thing that is important in the Bible. It leads to salvation. It leads to salvation in two ways.

In Judaism, it leads to national salvation - not just a nation that wants to have a state, but a nation that wants to serve God. That's the idea behind the Hebrew text of the Bible.

The New Testament that took the Hebrew Bible moves us toward personal salvation. So we have got these two kinds of salvation, which, from time to time, meet each other.

But the key word is salvation. Personal salvation means that each individual is looked after by God, Himself, who leads a person through His word to salvation. This is the idea in the Bible, whether we are talking about the Old or the New Testament. All of the laws in the Bible, even to the minutest ones, are, in fact directed toward this fact of salvation.

Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God. Therefore, you don't just walk around and obliterate the image of God. Many people, of course, used Biblical rules and turned them upside down. History has seen a lot of massacres in the name of God and in the name of Jesus. But as religions, both Judaism and Christianity in their fundamentals speak about honouring the image of God and the hope of salvation. These are the two basic fundamentals.

The Essence of Islam

Now let's move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world.

Let's look, then, at the difference between these three religions. Judaism speaks about national salvation - namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sins, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a verse in English. "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions."

The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule of Islam.

When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years - 640 - the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet Mohammed, were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic superiority. Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day.

Mohammed Held That All the Biblical Prophets Were Moslems

Mohammed did accept the existence of all the Biblical prophets before him. However he also said that all these prophets were Moslems. Abraham was a Moslem. In fact, Adam himself was the first Moslem. Isaac and Jacob and David and Solomon and Moses and Jesus were all Moslems, and all of them had writings similar to the Koran. Therefore, world history is Islamic history because all the heroes of history were Moslems.

Furthermore, Moslems accept the fact that each of these prophets brought with him some kind of a revelation. Moses, brought the Taurat, which is the Torah, and Jesus brought the Ingeel, which is the Evangelion or Gospel - namely the New Testament.

The Bible versus the Koran

Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran?

Mohammed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books. Had they not been changed and forged, they would have been identical to the Koran. But because Christians and Jews do have some truth, Islam concedes that they cannot be completely destroyed by war [for now].

Nevertheless, the laws are very clear - Jews and Christians have no rights whatsoever to independent existence. They can live under Islamic rule provided they keep to the rules that Islam promulgates for them.

Islamic Rule and Jihad

What happens if Jews and Christians don't want to live under the rules of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called Jihad. Jihad means war against those people who don't want to accept the Islamic superior rule. That's jihad. They may be Jews; they may be Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don't have too many Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East - their war is against the Jews and Christians.

A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world by bin Laden. He calls for jihad against America as the leader of the Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but because Americans are desecrating Arabia with their filthy feet. There are Americans in Arabia where no Christians should be. In this pamphlet there is not a single word about Israel. Only that Americans are desecrating the home of the prophet.

Two Houses

The Koran sees the world as divided into two - one part which has come under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it. The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) - that's the place where Islam rules - and the other part which is called Dar al-Harb - the house of war. Not the "house of non-Muslims," but the "house of war." It is this house of war which as to be, at the end of time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war until it comes under Islamic rule. This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it's so in the Koran. God has sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will overcome all other religions.

Islamic Law

Within the Islamic vision of this world, there are rules that govern the lives of the Moslems themselves, and these rules are very strict. In fundamentals, there are no differences between schools of law.

However, there are four streams of factions within Islam with differences between them concerning the minutiae of the laws. All over the Islamic world, countries have favored one or another of these schools of laws. The strictest school of law is called Hanbali, mainly coming out of Saudi Arabia. There are no games there, no playing around with the meanings of words. If the Koran speaks about war, then it's war.

There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened in Islam that tried to understand things differently. They even brought traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should not be killed in war.

These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is very important for us to remember. The Hanbali school of law is extremely strict, and today this is the school that is behind most of the terrorist powers. Even if we talk about the existence of other schools of Islamic law, when we're talking about fighting against the Jews, or fighting against the Christian world led by America, it is the Hanbali school of law that is being followed.

Islam and Territory

This civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be perpetually Islamic.

This is why whenever you hear about the Arab/Israeli conflict, you hear - territory, territory, territory. There are other aspects to the conflict, but territory is highly important.

The Christian civilization has not only been seen as a religious opponent, but as a dam stopping Islam from achieving its final goal for which it was created.

Islam was created to be the army of God, the army of Allah. Every single Moslem is a soldier in this army. Every single Moslem that dies in fighting for the spread of Islam is a shaheed (martyr) no matter how he dies, because - and this is very important - this is an eternal word between the two civilizations. It's not a war that stops. This war is there because it was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. This is a war that will not end.

Islam and Peace

Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only be between Moslem and Moslem.

With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only one solution - a cease fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come if the Islamic side wins. The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires. And this idea of cease-fire is based on a very important historical precedent, which, incidentally, Yasser Arafat referred to when he spoke in Johannesburg after he signed the Oslo agreement with Israel.

Let me remind you that the document speaks of peace - you wouldn't believe that you are reading! You would think that you were reading some science fiction piece. I mean when you read it, you can't believe that this was signed by Israelis who are actually acquainted with Islamic policies and civilization.

A few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, Arafat went to Johannesburg, and in a mosque there he made a speech in which he apologized, saying, "Do you think I signed something with the Jews which is contrary to the rules of Islam?" (I have obtained a copy of Arafat's recorded speech so I heard it from his own mouth.) Arafat continued, "That's not so. I'm doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed did."

Whatever the prophet is supposed to have done becomes a precedent. What Arafat was saying was, "Remember the story of Hodaybiya." The prophet had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for 10 years. But then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their city of Mecca. He, of course, found some kind of pretext.

Thus, in Islamic jurisdiction, it became a legal precedent which states that you are only allowed to make peace for a maximum of 10 years. Secondly, at the first instance that you are able, you must renew the jihad [thus breaking the "peace" agreement].

In Israel, it has taken over 50 years in this country for our people to understand that they cannot speak about [permanent] peace with Moslems. It will take another 50 years for the western world to understand that they have got a state of war with the Islamic civilization that is virile and strong. This should be understood: When we talk about war and peace, we are not talking in Belgium, French, English, or German terms. We are talking about war and peace in Islamic terms.

Cease-fire as a Tactical Choice

What makes Islam accept cease-fire? Only one thing - when the enemy is too strong. It is a tactical choice.

Sometimes, he may have to agree to a cease-fire in the most humiliating conditions. It's allowed because Mohammed accepted a cease-fire under humiliating conditions. That's what Arafat said to them in Johannesburg. When western policy makers hear these things, they answer, "What are you talking about? You are in the Middle Ages. You don't understand the mechanisms of politics."

Which mechanisms of politics? There are no mechanisms of politics where power is. And I want to tell you one thing - we haven't seen the end of it, because the minute a radical Moslem power has atomic, chemical or biological weapons, they will use it. I have no doubt about that.

Now, since we face war and we know that we cannot get more than an impermanent cease-fire, one has to ask himself what is the major component of an Israeli/Arab cease-fire. It is that the Islamic side is weak and your side is strong. The relations between Israel and the Arab world in the last 50 years since the establishment of our State has been based only on this idea, the deterrent power.

Wherever You Have Islam, You Will Have War

The reason that we have what we have in Yugoslavia and other places is because Islam succeeded into entering these countries. Wherever you have Islam, you will have war. It grows out of the attitude of Islamic civilization.

What are the poor people in the Philippines being killed for? What's happening between Pakistan and India?

Islamic Infiltration

Furthermore, there is another fact that must be remembered. The Islamic world has not only the attitude of open war, but there's also war by infiltration.

One of the things which the western world is not paying enough attention to is the tremendous growth of Islamic power in the western world. What happened in America and the Twin Towers is not something that came from the outside. And if America doesn't wake up, one day the Americans will find themselves in a chemical war and most likely in an atomic war - inside the U.S.

End of Days

It is highly important to understand how a civilization sees the end of days. In Christianity and in Judaism, we know exactly what is the vision of the end of days.

In Judaism, it is going to be as in Isaiah - peace between nations, not just one nation, but between all nations. People will not have any more need for weapons and nature will be changed - a beautiful end of days and the kingdom of God on earth.

Christianity goes as far as Revelation to see a day that Satan himself is obliterated. There are no more powers of evil. That's the vision.

I'm speaking now as a historian. I try to understand how Islam sees the end of days. In the end of days, Islam sees a world that is totally Moslem, completely Moslem under the rule of Islam. Complete and final victory.

Christians will not exist, because according to many Islamic traditions, the Moslems who are in hell will have to be replaced by somebody and they'll be replaced by the Christians.

The Jews will no longer exist, because before the coming of the end of days, there is going to be a war against the Jews where all Jews should be killed. I'm quoting now from the heart of Islamic tradition, from the books that are read by every child in school. The Jews will all be killed. They'll be running away and they'll be hiding behind trees and rocks, and on that day Allah will give mouths to the rocks and trees and they will say, "Oh Moslem come here, there is a Jew behind me, kill him." Without this, the end of days cannot come. This is a fundamental of Islam.

Is There a Possibility to End This Dance of War?

The question which we in Israel are asking ourselves is what will

happen to our country? Is there a possibility to end this dance of war?

The answer is, "No. Not in the foreseeable future." What we can do is reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet.

But for Islam, the establishment of the state of Israel was a reverse of Islamic history. First, Islamic territory was taken away from Islam by Jews. You know by now that this can never be accepted, not even one meter. So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave mistake. Territory, which at one time was dominated by Islamic rule, now has become non-Moslem. Non-Moslems are independent of Islamic rule; Jews have created their own independent state. It is anathema.

And (this is the worse) Israel, a non-Moslem state, is ruling over Moslems. It is unthinkable that non-Moslems should rule over Moslems.

I believe that Western civilization should hold together and support each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don't know. Israel finds itself on the front lines of this war. It needs the help of its sister civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe. It needs the help of the Christian world. One thing I am sure about, this help can be given by individual Christians who see this as the road to salvation.

John K said "I wonder; will the leaders of Islam in this region condem these murders? Will they hunt down the individuals and exact Islamic law on them? No they will not." John, Indonesia is a secular state, and as proper, the court is trying the murder (erroreously) as a terrorist, and he faces the death penalty if found guilty. It would hardly be appropriate for "leaders of Islam in this region" to exact punishment, but the guy could quite possible be hung, what more do you want? I personally think, from what little that could be gleaned from the article, the accused should face 'murder', not 'terrorism' charges (reason stated above)

If you haven't noticed John, there isn't too much of the world where Muslims aren't treated as 'second-class citizens' (it's gotta be 'real laugh' being an American Muslim at the moment). With the threat of what little land (where Islam isn't a subservient religion) being taken from them (the creation of Israel, 'the 6-day war', Israel's attitude to Palestinian sovereignty) you can't blame Arab Islam for being antsy about territory... Palestine was an autonomous land for A LONG TIME compared to the handful of decades that they have required Israel's 'permission' simply to live. The concept of Israel needing western help is a bit of a stretch, with American arms they have 'held their own' (and their neighbour's territory too) I understand there are enough US-made 'cluster-bombs' in Lebanon for every child to have one.

But the effective reduction of muslim culture (it isn't one homogenous culture) to 'Islam equals War', is something I cannot accept (and as an inconvienience to the theory, it's not something that many muslim can accept. Where on earth did this idea come from? It sounds more like 'capitalism crossed with Bushido', or a 'Christanity/Blitzkrieg hybrid', it certainly isn't Islam). For 'Western Civilisation' (seems like a contradiction sometimes) to unify, or 'support each' other agaist Islam would not only cement an 'Us and Them' binary mentality, but guarantee that Christendom is the 'holy war' seeking tyrant that some erroneously accuse Islam of. It would be a corrupt christian jihad, but only spelt differently. For starters, it takes (a least) two parties for war, and an enemy is only an enemy if they oppose the other party (the political equivalent of 'Newton's third law'). Arab-Islamic nations aren't trying a large-scale territory grab, infact, I'd bet more Islam is spread as the faith of refugees than by any other means. So why should the west unify against the oppressed? (I think becoming a refugee to 'infiltrate' the rest of the world with Islam would be real stretch of the imagination)

This notion of 'the holylands being soiled by the feet of infidels' (I'm referring to John's BinLaden literature... I'd be careful who I'd tell about that connection of yours mate), Christendom has been sending that exact message to Islam for a thousand years (yeah, the crusades. Nothing says 'I hate you', quite like a sword!)... forgive the Arab nations (it's what Jesus would have wanted!) for being on edge about invasion, they've had good reason to worry lately.

This 'One world under Allah or else' that you are accusing Islam of John, more closly resembles Christanity. So much of the world has been colonised with 'a bible in one hand, and a gun in the other'. The former colonial powers conquered the world 'in the name of God and the King'. Just have look at a world map sometime: North America, South America, Europe, Australia/Pacific, most of Africa, large chunks of Asia (ie. where locals didn't resist with force). You are holding Islam up as dangerous because of the thoughts of resentment that you are projecting onto many separate cultures with a religion in common (and the actions of relatively few isolated individuals), when Christianity has been living large on the genocide and conquest fronts, for many hundreds of years.

On the contrary; I have. Several.Interesting given your previous statements that you wouldn't talk to scum when asked the same question.

But Angus seems to have more patience for you than I do today, so I'll leave him to shoot your nonsense down. But just to add to his last paragraph, it's worth noting that the "under God" in the pledge of allegience was only added under Eisenhower, so it's mildly ironic that certain individuals would maintain that it's "unAmerican" to remove it and then attempt to attack Islam for trying to create "one world under Allah".

Very convienient for you Za to pull an out of context quote when I have told you several times that I have spoken with many Muslims. Yet; you keep insisting I have not and asking that same old tired question even though it has no relevance to the debate or discussion.You; young Buttmunch; Do NOT LISTEN!As far as Angus; he has his opinion. Though I doubt it has been born out of the extensive and exhastive research that my posting above was from.A paper by The leading professor in The Middle East of Islam and Islamic studies for more than 70 years.The Agenda of Islam - A War Between Civilizations:By Professor Moshe Sharon APPENDIX: Ezra HaLevi, "Islamic History Expert: Moslem Peace with Israel? Never!" Arutz-Sheva September 15, 2006, http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=1120660

Islam History Professor Moshe Sharon of Hebrew University told a counter-terrorism conference, "There is no possibility of peace between Israel and the Palestinians whatsoever - ever."

Sharon, speaking at the annual conference of Herzliya's Counter Terrorism Institute, said that Iran is dead serious about obtaining and using nuclear weapons in order to bring about its vision of an Islamic End of Days.

Maybe you both should like to read this from todays Middle East Media Research Institute.MEMRI has translations today of editorials published in Iranian newspapers recently, predicting the imminent destruction of Israel and calling on Muslims to “prepare for the great war:”

“The 33-day war ended without any of the goals that had been declared by the Zionist government and the commanders of its military being attained - and this was the first time that Israel was forced to accept its complete downfall...

“In the 33-day war, the Lebanese Hizbullah destroyed at least 50% of Israel [and therefore] half the path to the liberation of Jerusalem equals 33 days. Now, only (at most) 50% of the path [to Israel’s destruction] remains. This remaining 50% is easier than the 50% that was already accomplished. Now, in the face of the degree of fear and lack of confidence that has been deeply implanted in [all] parts of the Zionist regime, the Muslim peoples of the region, and particularly the four Arab countries neighboring Palestine [i.e. Israel] - Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon - are full of hope and confidence, and they have no doubt, that they will be able to very quickly overcome the Zionist regime...

“According to this description, just as in one 33-day war more than 50% of Israel was destroyed, and the hope of its supporters for the continued life of this regime was broken, it is likely that in the next battle, the second half will also collapse.

“On that day... Jordan will not be able to prevent the Jordanian Islamists from operating through the long Jordan-Palestine border, and the millions of Egyptian Islamists... will not let the Sinai-Israel border remain quiet, and the Syrian Golan Heights will not remain as a [mere] observer of the battle. That day is not so far off.”

50% of Israel destroyed!Does Israel know this?There isn't much evidence of this. I've done a quick search, and according to Reuters the financial damage (ie. loss of production) done to Israel is around 4 to 5%. Physical damage: If 50% of Israel was destroyed, economic output would drop to a flat zero, and we'd be hearing of the massive humanitarian disaster in Israel.John, as it appears that you are quoting Iranian media with the damage done to Israel, and ease with which Israel can be destroyed, then you would have come to same obvious conclusion: They are shit-scared, and are exaggerating wildly to avoid admitting to their public that they don't have a prayer if it came to a direct fight. While Israel is comparatively untouched, they succeeded in their objective to "bomb Lebanon back to the stone-age". In the case of Iran, it is not un-common for isolated totalitarian states to boast of 'invincibility', before, during, and after, a proper spanking. Think of the Ba'ath Party Iraqi foreign minister, North Korea. It's just hype to avoid being lynched by their own people.

"As far as Angus; he has his opinion. Though I doubt it has been born out of the extensive and exhastive research that my posting above was from.A paper by The leading professor in The Middle East of Islam and Islamic studies for more than 70 years.The Agenda of Islam - A War Between Civilizations:By Professor Moshe Sharon"

What this? A 'I'll show you mine, if you show me yours!' of academic pedigree?

The large post (about 7 up), is that an extract from Moshe Sharon? Or did you paraphrase? I'm confused as to why you've his background and not yours. I'm not interested in a game of 'my expert is better than yours', largely because I'd rather not 'put stock' in any one person (other than myself of course), rather to read and listen to a variety of sources, and then draw conclusions. A person who accepts only one source is; by definition, ‘narrow-minded’.

On the topic of 'experts', you refer to (what I assume are) Jewish 'experts' on Islam/Arab nations. That seem more than a little odd, you don't think that there maybe a little bit of bias/prejudice? I mean, if someone started quoting some 'old-school' German 'experts' on Israel, it would seem 'out of place'. It seems out of place having Iranian media assess the damage done to Israel, and Jewish academics speak the mind of Islam.

Very convienient for you Za to pull an out of context quote when I have told you several times that I have spoken with many Muslims.Wasn't out of context. At the time I asked you whether you'd spoken with any Muslims and your response was exactly what I said.

Yet; you keep insisting I have not and asking that same old tired question even though it has no relevance to the debate or discussion.It has plenty of relevance since you're slandering their position. It also has relevance since previously you have attempted to state what North Koreans think about their way of life... and your only credentials on THAT statement were having SEEN some North Koreans once.

You; young Buttmunch; Do NOT LISTEN!Says the guy who makes up stuff to put in my mouth, and believes I want terrorists to destroy America.

Though I doubt it has been born out of the extensive and exhastive research that my posting above was from.I didn't know that cut and pasted articles counted as extensive OR exhaustive.

Also did you notice that your "expert" Sharon cited... absolutely nothing than his own opinion in said article? He stated that he was "quoting from the heart of Islamic tradition, from the books that are read by every child in school", yet he cited nothing. But you're good for those kinds of articles, aren't you John?

Angus; I do agree with your assessment of the Iranian article but I was not showing it for factual authenticity but for the context of its predictions concerning the paper that Dr. Sharon wrote. The same predictions in the article can be tied directly to the Islamic mindset he wrote about.The Iranians should be shit-scared. Their Islamic Mullahs are leading them to the brink of nuclear extinction via Israel.I was not trying to compare credentials with you either. My opinions are born from personal reading and life experience. I have been looking into Islam for more than 30 years and the threats of its philosophy are well documented by scholars worldwide and from every religious and secular background. The most extensive and credible resources come from former muslims in my opinion. I personally have no formal education in these matters but should that automatically preclude the facts? Though Iam highly trained and educated in my field of expertise; cannot one self taught in another arena have valid opinions based on facts? I would think so. I’am sure you probably are not an Islamic expert either or you would have stated so. My interest in Islam and its destructive philosophies were born out of the 1974 Olympics terrorist attacks in Munich that I watched as a very young man. Trying to understand what was actually taking place.The paper that I posted was one that comprehensively analyzed the mindest of the subject of Islamic history and philosophy; condensed enough to post in a blog comments column.I did not paraphrase the paper. It is exactly as he wrote it. I thought it would make sense to you. I wondered if you would take exception to his being a Jewish professor writing about Islam; but if you look at his background you would see he is an Athiest but happens to be from a Jewish family. He lived, worked and interacted with Arabs (Islamists) his whole life even long before Israel was a state. He is well into his nineties now and still teaches and lectures. But there are many many other Islamic experts who hold the same conclusions. All one has to do is find them by searching.

Za; You are such a con artist and flim flam man with words; it does not even matter I respond to your lunacy. But I will in one context. Fuck Off.Example: “It also has relevance since previously you have attempted to state what North Koreans think about their way of life... and your only credentials on THAT statement were having SEEN some North Koreans once. “

Taken out of context. I served in South Korea at the DMZ only 20 feet from trained DPRK assasins posing as soldiers for several months…spoke with them because I’am fluent in Korean..ate with them on separate sides of the room and all the rest of the life experiences associated with that kind of assignment and training for such an assignment.

A FAR cry from your out of context statement that I claimed to have seen one once.You are a classic asshole. So what does that say about your out of context quote from me about Islamic scum? I’ll let the readers decide.EVERYONE knows you’re an slanderer and intellectually dishonest.

It's not that I take exception with someone with Jewish heritage commenting on Islam, it just that I was trying to find a reason for what seem like an extreme and hateful position. Islam isn't a 'military code of behaviour' ("What makes Islam accept cease-fire? Only one thing - when the enemy is too strong. It is a tactical choice."), it is a religion, and peaceful one at that. You John, (or your expert) are confusing a religion with some nations where it is common. It matters not who is doing it, although I was guessing that it was personal investment in the situation that caused it (a guess not an assertion) , Has this guy 'obsessed' about it for 70 years? There is a difference between research and obsession. Things that may affected him personally, might make him 'less than suitable' as an expert. But that is irrelevant.

Regardless of whether Moshe Sharon has a personal involvement in this subject, he has confused religion with nation.

Getting back to the original post:Islam isn't the enemy, in 'The War of Terror'.The behaviour of an Indonesian murderer (charged with 'terrorism related charges') isn't an insight into the mind of the enemy.The American Democratic Party need not be concerned (the Indonesians have got this one, even if the offender does turn-out to have 'learning difficulties', confusing headheading school girls as charity, Islamic or otherwise, and the Indonesian's 'trying to look busy' on terrorism)

The moral of this tale: Don't confuse a state; or its leaders, with the religion they invoke when they do their 'foul deeds'. The three great religions of the middle-east, each have had some appalling things done in their name, but that does not mean that the religions advocate or condone the attrocities. So next time you hear someone spouting that 'My God is better than your God and will kick your God's arse' type nonsense (and lets face it, there are people from ALL THREE RELIGIONS who do that), don't think that their God is actually endorsing this, it is afterall, the same God.

Taken out of contextNo, I asked whether you'd spoken to any North Koreans, and you said you hadn't. I then asked if you'd even seen a North Korean, and you said you had.So once again, you're simply inconsistent.

As for intellectual dishonesty, I'm actually amused at the hypocrisy of that accusation.

NO. For the umpteenth time you are shown to be a Liar and a slanderer./ ZA.Gget your ducks in a row before you start shooting arrows. \I have said; I had not? Prove it; you liar. Plain falsehood is bound to find you out. Lets take a readers Poll. Shall we? I placed everything in context but you being the liar and con artist that you are; have ignored my statements.

Your accusations say I don't give context, but then refuse to actually talk about the conversations I'm referencing. You call me a liar, but refuse to actually go back and find the conversation to prove me wrong.

I think you're beginning to lose your memories John, since this is not the first time you've been unable to recall what we've spoken about.

Recall that time you accused me of saying that the government was biased against Muslims, when actually I was saying that you display a descrimination bias when it comes to selecting articles about criminal behaviour? Or maybe you can't.

"I was saying that you display a descrimination bias when it comes to selecting articles about criminal behaviour?"

There does seem to be an alarming attitude towards Islam around here sometimes, that it is a 'given' that Muslim = Terrorism, as though it is an article of common sense, beyond question. I keep thinking that if I ask questions, explore the nature of the statements that lead me to think that, that I'll find out that I was mistaken, but no one presenting the arguements that have lead me to that conclusion, seem interested in dispelling that appearance.

Does that mean; despite my desire to see the best in people, that I am right in thinking some of you happily condemn all Islam as terrorists? Please say it isn't so!

My persomnal opinion is that the very basic concepts of Islam; which is to conquor the world by the sword of war and violence is by it's very nature Terroristic. Terrorism is just a word to describe a tactic of Islam. But myself and some of my countrymen are at war with Islam. It's that our government has officially taken the less critical road of saying a "War on Terrorism" out of pollitical correctness speach run amok.

He challenges the largest superpower on earth, threatens a regional superpower with annihilation, and mocks international efforts to keep tabs on his nuclear program. Where does the unswerving confidence of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad come from?

To whom did Ahmadinejad refer to when he told the United Nations in September: "I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for… the perfect righteous human being and real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet. Almighty God… make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause. "

According to Shiite Islam, the twelfth Imam, named Mahdi, is the awaited messiah who will establish the rule of Islam around the world – following a massive war during which Islam's enemies are expected to be decimated. Iran's official state websites are filled with information about the Islamic Republic's messiah.

"Imam Mahdi was unseen from the eyes of common people and nobody could see him except special group of Shiites... After the martyrdom of his father he was appointed as the next Imam. Then he was hidden by God's command and he was just observable by the special deputies of his own," the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting website declares.

'One strike to end infidels'

Iran's state broadcasting website also contains a special hadith (tradition) prayer, to be recited onthe birthday of the Mahdi: "Today is Friday, a day you are expected to come; the faithful will be free of cares and troubles when you shall arrive, and with one strike shall put an end to the intrigues of the infidels."

Speaking to Ynetnews, Professor Raymond Tanter, one of the authors of the forthcoming book 'What Makes Iran Tick,' which explores the Shiite Islamist ideology of Iran, said there was no questioning the belief of Iran's leaders in the coming of the Mahdi.

Tanter, President of the Iran Policy Committee , a Washington-based organization comprised of former officials from the White House, State Department, Pentagon, and intelligence services, said: "The Iranian leadership, particularly Ahmadinejad, welcome the apocalyptic vision of the return of the hidden Imam. And all the strains of Islam believe in the eventual return of the Mahdi, also known as the twelfth Imam, or the Shiite messiah. After a period of great destruction, once the forces of evil are defeated, the so-called twelfth Imam is supposed to reign over a period of great prosperity."

"When Ahmadinejad was mayor of Tehran, he set up an urban renewal program that would make it easier to facilitate the Mahdi's return. He created passageways and roadways that would allow the Mahdi to return triumphantly. He operationalized this concept," Tanter added. The Iranian president did not view himself as the Shiite messiah though, according to Tanter.

'Man of a thousand bullets'

"Ahmadinejad was called the man of a thousand bullets. Because he would give the last bullet for someone who has been tortured, and primarily executed by firing squad. Ahmadinejad's role was to put the last bullet in, in case the person was still squirming. After a thousand people had been killed, supposedly he said, he had it with that particular job," Tanter said.

Tanter noted Ahmadinejad's comments after a speech to the UN General Assembly in 2005, which he also concluded with a call for the Mahdi to return. After the speech, Ahmadinejad said that "the hand of God had held all of them" in a hypnotized-like state, and had "opened their eyes and ears."

"Before the return of the Mahdi, there must be a suitable representative to govern in the Mahdi's place," Tanter explained.

"They are ruling until the Mahdi comes. That is the justification for Khamenei to rule," he added.

Tanter said that "most of the ayatollahs in Iran don't buy this, that you can facilitate the return of the messiah," adding that Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah probably "doesn't take it that seriously."

"Ahmadinejad is taking steps well beyond the rest of Islam," he said.

Messianic nuclear weapons

"There is a link between Iran’s nuclear weapons program on one hand, and its ideology of trying to facilitate a cataclysmic event to hasten the return of the Mahdi. As a result, no conceivable positive or negative incentives will influence the leadership of the clerics and the revolutionary guards from acquiring nuclear weapons. They need nuclear weapons in order to facilitate the ideological precepts of the return of the Mahdi," said Tanter.

"The process of diplomacy as far as Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are concerned is to prevent sanctions that would constrain the nuclear weapons progress, and to that extent Iran has done well to drag out this process," he added.

Citing realist arguments that Iran needs nuclear weapons "to deter neighbors in a tough neighborhood," Tanter said such views were misguided. "These nuclear weapons are tied to the return of the Mahdi, and no one says this," he says.

There does seem to be an alarming attitude towards Islam around here sometimes, that it is a 'given' that Muslim = Terrorism, as though it is an article of common sense, beyond question.If you want to read back some, Chris actually shows an interesting shift in portrayal of Iraqis for a similar reason (Middle Eastern = terrorist). With John, it's entirely religious, with Chris you'll find it a bit hazier to define exactly what makes someone liable to be branded a potential terrorist.

After "major combat operations [had] ended", Iraqis were apparently an American-loving peaceful people, or at least, that's what the majority of posts on here were. But whenever an Iraqi wasn't in Iraq, he suddenly was a terrorist. Iraqis in Mexico? Must be a terrorist trying to cross the border.

I'm like you - for the questioning of assumptions. Socratic method is very useful.